|
*
Pakistan and Lebanon, the same struggle
Daily Star,
Lebanon, January 4, 2008
By Hiram Chodosh and Chibli Mallat
The
assassination last week of former Pakistani Prime Minister
Benazir Bhutto was the latest tragic expression of a sour
reality that characterizes the Middle East and its broader
geopolitical orbit: In the absence of democracy (meaning
regular change at the top by means of free and fair
elections), political violence is a certainty.
There are
similarities between the situation in Pakistan and Lebanon.
The February 14, 2005, assassination of former Lebanese
Prime Minister Rafik Hariri followed the forced extension of
President Emile Lahoud's mandate in September 2004. In
Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf sought to extend his
rule last summer. His main nemesis, Bhutto, was killed four
months later. Politically speaking, neither murder was a
coincidence.
The
perpetuation of absolute rule is the main reason why the
Middle East, the world's most dangerous and least stable
region, despite its wealth and resources, has remained
steeped in violence since the 1950s. Violence and lack of
democracy are the twin traits of a blocked political
process, which in turn is likely to engender violence.
In the absolute
monarchies of the Gulf, Jordan and Morocco, a brother or son
replaces the ruler. In "monarchical republics" (or jamlaka
in Arabic, following novelist Elias Khoury's contraction of
mamlaka, monarchy, and jumhuriyya, republic), rulers also
actively seek to be replaced by their sons at death, as in
the example of Syria in June 2000. The same misfortune has
been unfolding in the republics of Yemen, Libya, and Egypt.
Monarchies are, similarly, absolute and refuse dissent.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Morocco, all reject any political
challenges to their rulers.
Pakistan and
Lebanon are crucial tests for the broader Middle East. In
Beirut and Islamabad, where people have courageously stood
up to the perpetuation of dictatorship, the devastating
pattern of regime retaliation needs to be defeated.
Musharraf has long overstayed his welcome, if he ever had
one, as head of state. His maneuvers during the past two
years have had a single objective: to remain in power. After
imposing a state of emergency, he forced a kangaroo Supreme
Court to confirm his election as president after arresting
and dismissing judges and lawyers - notably the Supreme
Court's chief justice who opposed Musharraf's bid to
perpetuate his rule. Yet the president has retained the
support of the West, which sees him as a bulwark against
extreme Islamists.
In Lebanon, the
pattern has been similar. In 1998, the army commander, Emile
Lahoud, was elected president, after passage of a
constitutional amendment allowing him to stand for office -
one supported by Syria and even the United States. Syria and
Lahoud again pushed through a constitutional amendment in
2004 to extend the president's term, in contravention to
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559. Citizens
and parliamentarians opposed the move, violence followed,
and since then the struggle has continued to elect a new
president freely.
The Lebanese
political process remains blocked. However, instead of
backing an open election between candidates, Western states,
particularly France and the US, have been calling for a
constitutional amendment to permit the election of the army
commander, General Michel Suleiman. This is effectively a
nomination process, not a competitive election that is the
basic hallmark of democracy. Such calls come at a time when
those uncomfortable with true democracy in Lebanon, all
allies of Damascus, have been preventing a normal election
carried out by Parliament.
It is not
enough for Musharraf to abandon his military fatigues and
run for the presidency. It is not enough to call for free
and fair presidential elections in Lebanon, as the UN has
been doing since 2004. Specific measures need to be enacted
to ensure that non-violent alternations of power happen
democratically. This can only be done by reinforcing the
levers to implement both individual and collective
accountability.
A large group
of human rights and democracy activists from Pakistan to
Morocco presented a document to the Group of Eight meeting
in New York in 2004. It stated that "dictatorship should no
longer be considered a mere crime against society. It must
now be considered as a crime against humanity." Democratic
governments across the world are failing to respond to this
request, by imposing sanctions against individuals who are
hijacking democracy in Lebanon, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Now
is the time for a coalition of democracies - a majority of
countries in the world - to join together and advance a more
activist democratic agenda.
What might
these sanctions cover? Dictators and their entourage can be
prevented from traveling abroad, and that includes for such
things as shopping, medical treatment, and other amenities
they usually deny their opponents. If agents of death don't
relent, they should at least be made to feel the law closing
in on them internationally. If the UN is incapable of
respecting its own Charter, the largest possible coalition
of democratic countries should allow dictators' victims to
bring dictators to trial under international human rights
law. The US and Europe could easily take the lead. Both
places are where dictators and their families usually head.
If we are
serious about preventing political violence in Pakistan,
Lebanon and other countries, we need to fulfill our
commitment to peace, justice and democracy. Although each
case is different, the patterns of abuse are similar, and
the common response is simple. If accountability is denied
domestically by despots, it needs to be enforced
internationally.
Hiram Chodosh is
dean of the law school at the University of Utah. Chibli
Mallat, a professor of law in Utah and Lebanon, is a
candidate for the Lebanese presidency. They wrote this
commentary for THE DAILY STAR. |
